Gujarat Court February 1971 Judgments
Star Trading Corporation Vs. Rajratna Naranbhai Mills Company Ltd. (In ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas1023(Guj); (1972)GLR200
Bhagwati, C.J. 1. This appeal raises an interesting question of construction of section 446, sub-section (2), of the Companies Act, 1956. It arises out of an application made by the appellant under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for stay of Suit No. 1 of 1970, filed by the respondents against the appellant in this court. The suit came to be filed in the following circumstances. The first respondent, prior to its winding-up, entered into two contracts with the appellant for purchase of certain items of textile machinery and under the contracts the first respondent paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 39,852 to the appellant. The appellant was ready and wiling to deliver the contracted items of textile machinery to the first respondent against payment of the balance of the purchase price but the first respondent failed to take delivery owing to its difficult financial circumstances and the appellant, therefore, forfeited the sum of Rs. 39,852 on the basis that it represented earnest mo...
Tag this Judgment!Anandlal Dosabhai Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1387; (1971)GLR795
ORDERY.D. Desai, J.1. This reference made by the learned Sessions Judge at Jamnagar arises out of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamnagar, in Summary Case No. 1000/69 convicting one Anandlal Dosabhai for having committed offences Under Sections 177 and 193 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 19(53, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- under each count read with Section 227 of the Act. In default of payment of fine, Anandlal was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five days.2. Anandlal was the owner of house, bearing S. No. 829 in Ward No. 15, Digvijay Sheri No. 50, Jamnagar, and one Mohanlal Madhavji Vithlani was his tenant staying on the upper floor of the said house. As it was found by the Municipal Inspector that dirty water was thrown on the street which stagnated and created a public nuisance, a notice dated 16th October, 1968 was issued against the owner Anandlal directing that drain pipes be fixed on the two...
Tag this Judgment!Mali Kodarbhai Motibhai Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-1971
Reported in: (1971)12GLR328
M.U. Shah, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated October 30, 1965 delivered by a single Judge of this High Court in Second Appeal No. 1149 of 1960, dismissing the appeal. It involves a substantial question of interpretation of the second part of Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), which will hereafter be referred to as 'the Act', which provides:' ...and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality.' The learned Judge has taken the view that this second part of the sub-section is a directory and not a mandatory provision of law. In his opinion, the Legislature could not have intended to make the latter part of the sub-section mandatory in all circumstances.2. The relevant facts may first be shortly stated. The appellant, named Mali Kodarbhai Motibhai, claims to be a protected tenant of the southern ...
Tag this Judgment!Mer Arjan Lakha and anr. Vs. the Administrator, Ghed Bagasara Kheti Vi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Guj1; (1972)0GLR221
1. These four petitioners have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by two petitioners the first of whom was the President of Ghed Bagasara Kheti Vishavak Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Ltd., operating in the village Ghed Bagasara of Mangrol Taluka under Junagadh district and the second of whom was the Secretary of that society. The respondent No.1 is the Administrator of that society and the respondent No.2 is a member of the said Society.2. The Society and the respondent No. 2 filed against the petitioners four arbitration cases under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 for recovery of certain amounts alleged to have been due from the petitioners. Those cases were tried by the Registrar's nominee who by his order dated 28th June 1969 dismissed all of them. The society which is the respondent No. 1 to the petition and the respondent No.2 filed appeals to the Co-operative Tribunal against the nominee's decisions in all the four cases. The appeal were filed beyond time. ...
Tag this Judgment!Malahavarao Bhagwandas Kharade Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1626; (1971)GLR956
ORDERY.D. Desai, J.1. This revision petition arises out of conviction of the petitioner Under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalol, in Criminal Case No. 3074 of 1968. This conviction of his came to ' be confirmed by the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal.No. 53 of 1970.2. It was alleged against the petitioner that he was found drunk at Kalol on a public road on 21st August .1968 in the evening and that he was found drunk with the result that he was sent to the local Medical Officer for examination. The Medical Officer found that his speech, gait and pupils were normal; but he was found under the influence of alcohol. He extracted his blood that evening at about 10-30 P. M. and sent it to the Chemical Analyser for examination on 28th August 1968 by registered post. This blood sample was received by the Chemical Analyser on 31st August 1968. On examination thereof, he certified that the conce...
Tag this Judgment!Colaba Land and Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. V.J. Pilani and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-1971
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas1078(Guj)
J.B. Mehta, J. 1. This matter raises the following preliminary issues : '(1) Whether the petition is maintainable in view of the provisions of section 543 of the Companies Act (2) Whether the petition is barred by limitation (3) If the alleged acts of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance were committed prior to the coming into operation of the Companies Act, 1956, whether the petition is maintainable (4) Whether the petition is premature inasmuch as the liquidator of the Colaba Land and Mills Co. Ltd. has yet not declared a final dividend on the shares of that company (5) Whether the petition is premature inasmuch as the sale proceeds of 1,922 shared of the Colaba Land and Mills Co. Ltd. and 10,045 shares of Vasant Investment Corporation Ltd. are not realised (6) Whether the petition have been filed without the permission of this court is maintainable at law (7) Whether the petition is mala fide and without due regard to the interests of the shareholder (8) Whether the peti...
Tag this Judgment!D. Mayavanshi Vs. K.S. Pawri and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1391; (1971)GLR804
ORDERA.A. Dave, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law whether a Single Judge of this Court could be deemed to be subordinate to the Division Bench of this Court for the purpose envisaged in Section 476 (B) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as under:-2. The present appellant joined the services in the State of Gujarat on 1st July 1963 as a direct recruit to the post of Police Sub Inspector. He was posted at Junagadh and several other places. On 19th December, 1966, he was served with a charge sheet, dated 14th December, 1966. The charge under the said charge sheet was in respect of a private inland letter, dated 14th January 1965 alleged to have been written by the present appellant to his friend Punjabhai. This letter was sent to the Vigilence Commission which entrusted the inquiry to the C. I. D., Gujarat State. On the recommendation of the C. I. D., a departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner and ultima...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›